I thank the Chairman and the honourable members of the committee. I am pleased to have this opportunity to meet with the committee and to talk about the relationship between the Commission and the EU institutions and national Parliaments, and comment on what the Lisbon treaty involves. I checked the committee's website before coming here and stopped at the clear and concise explanation of its main task, namely, "to monitor, review and report on the implications of EU policies for the future of the EU", and more importantly, "for the future of Ireland as a member of the EU, and for people's daily lives". Reading a bit further I was flattered to find mention of my work as a Commissioner but most of all I was happy to see that the efforts of this Commission in its relations with national Parliaments have gone down so well in this Parliament.
A greater voice for Parliaments is a greater voice for Europe's citizens. That has been the motto from the beginning. This is the first time that there has been a Commissioner responsible for contacts with national Parliaments. This Parliament and committee take this process seriously and contribute to it in a way that many could envy and learn from.
The focus of European co-operation and the European Union is to learn from and share with each other. It should not only concern money, decision-making procedures and bureaucracy, and business opportunities, although that is important. It should concern democracy and equality, giving everyone opportunities and creating a level playing field. We have come quite far in this but there is no reason for complacency. On the contrary, we must reconquer democracy at all times.
The new treaty is a good example of that because democracy is not static. The world around us changes constantly and we must change with it. In the past 50 years the European Union has grown from six to 27 member states which places new demands on all of us, the EU institutions, the member states' Governments, the regions and citizens. Political issues have changed. Today we focus on things that were unknown 50 years ago, globalisation existed then in a way but it was not called that, and we feel its effects more today. Climate change and the energy challenge, the ageing population and rapid technological development place new demands on politicians and on citizens. Everyone should take the opportunity to make his or her voice heard. The citizens' priorities should set the political agenda for the European Union. We need to discuss and debate what initiatives and decisions the EU should take. Only then can we achieve good and sustainable political results.
The Lisbon treaty is a good example of how the EU needs to change with the world around it. This new treaty adapts the EU to the enlarged Union it has become and makes it possible to welcome more new members. It also makes concrete improvements, for example, it clarifies citizens' rights, creates more openness and transparency, gives more say to national Parliaments and more power to the directly-elected European Parliament. It makes it easier to take decisions, which is not always easy with 27 member states around the table. It gives us a more efficient foreign policy and lays more emphasis on our common fight against climate change. It is a success for everyone working for a more open and democratic union. It radically improves the possibilities for citizens and organisations to take an active part in the democratic process through, for example, the citizens' initiative. This is one of the tools for democracy that we so badly need and will get. We are waiting for the new member states to ratify the Lisbon treaty. There have been discussions on whether to hold referenda. As a representative of the Commission I have no view on that. It is up to each member state to choose how it wants to ratify according to its own constitution and democratic traditions.
One thing the member states, EU institutions and individual politicians have in common is the need to explain the treaty and to debate and discuss it with citizens. It is important to discuss the concrete political questions and the problems to be solved because we need to deliver concrete political results in a way that citizens rightly expect from an open, modern and democratic union. With new structures of democratic influence we can forge ahead, away from an old top-down approach and hopefully instead have a bottom-up approach. Only by standing on the solid ground of knowledge can one form radical opinions and take a stand. That is the necessary condition for a well-functioning and stable democracy. As the American politician Alexander Hamilton said, those who stand for nothing, fall for anything. This is where US national parliamentarians play such a crucial role. One must develop democracy, dialogue and debate on European issues. One deals with a substance and engages with the citizens. For this Commission, national Parliaments are central. More than 350 visits by Commissioners to national Parliaments for plenary debates or committee hearings in the past three years show how serious we are.
European affairs need to be fully anchored in the political parties and the national democratic traditions and in the daily political discussions. I can see no better backer for that than the national Parliaments. Parliamentary debates and discussions will improve the process of European policy formulation, as stated in the Commission report two years ago. The Commission's decisions and policies will become better and gain more interest and support if the Parliaments are involved. That is why we have established this dialogue mechanism with all national Parliaments in the Union.
This dialogue mechanism is not an attempt to circumvent established procedures. We do not want to go behind the back of the Council, national Governments or the European Parliament. It is a way of having a dialogue that allows all national Parliaments to be better informed at an earlier stage. It provides a window of opportunity for all to be more active in the preparation and formulation of European policies.
By the end of last year, we received 167 opinions from 27 assemblies from 17 member states on 82 Commission texts, legislation and consultative papers. When I left Brussels yesterday, the last count was more than 180 opinions.
Do the opinions make any difference? An unequivocal "Yes" is the answer. The first impact of this political dialogue is that it obliges the Commission to better explain the purpose of our proposals. In some cases, the Commission, in full co-operation with the Council and the European Parliament, has complemented the text of a proposal as a result of comments from national Parliaments which justifies it better for subsidiarity. In many cases, opinions expressed by national Parliaments were reflected in the legislative process by either the European Parliament or the Council. This points to the added value of the political dialogue. It is an early warning mechanism for the Commission, allowing us to pick up early signals from Parliaments. We hear if Parliaments are going beyond our remit.
Above all, the important message is that the Commission has taken a political approach to our commitment to national Parliaments. This is a political move. It is about anchoring, engagement and ownership. The new provisions in the Lisbon treaty build on this existing political commitment. The treaty recognises that national Parliaments contribute actively to the good functioning of the EU and by making the transmission of legislative proposals and programme documents an obligation. The treaty also recognises national Parliaments are the best place to judge whether the Commission's proposals respect subsidiarity.
These are interesting and challenging times for the EU. Much needs to be done and several hurdles must be passed. I am full of hope for Europe's future, not in a naive sense but in that expressed by George Bernard Shaw when he said we are made wise not by the recollection of our past but by the responsibility for our future.